Faith and Development

It would be obvious to readers that in this series of posts we have been challenging the validity of single-cause explanations of the relative lack of economic and social development in South Asia. Thus, while we agree that overpopulation, illiteracy, and corruption can have negative implications, we have tried to convince readers with evidence that neither of them can be considered the root cause of all our problems.

In this post we address another such single-cause explanation that one comes across fairly often in Pakistan – that loss of religious faith (or deviation from the true path) is the primary reason for the continued problems in the country. Let us examine this proposition and test it against the arguments of reason and the weight of empirical evidence.

There are two components to the proposition: faith and development. Taken separately, they are relatively unproblematic. Most people consider development to be good and a laudable goal for both individuals and societies. Faith, by itself, is a matter of the free exercise of individual choice.

It is the link between faith and development that needs to be examined. I doubt if even diehard believers in the proposition would suggest a one-to-one correspondence between the two components because that would result in odd contradictions and unacceptable conclusions. Western countries are all more economically developed than Pakistan. Does that mean that their citizens are all more religiously upright than ours? If so, what is the basis for the same believers simultaneously condemning the West for its alleged loose morality?

There is also no logical basis for restricting the relationship between faith and development to the level of countries. It should apply just as well to individuals and to regions within countries. Both applications would cast doubt on the proposition. In the case of individuals it is often lamented by believers that success is inversely related to religious devotion. Within countries, some regions are more prosperous than others and cities are always more developed than rural areas. It would be absurd to claim that the people of Karachi are reaping the benefits of adhering to the true faith while Kohistanis are suffering because of a loss of faith. On the contrary, the believers of the theory are quite as likely to argue that cities are the seats of evil while rural areas remain the founts of faith.

Going even further, why should the proposition not be applicable to activities like sports? Simply because it would be impossible to argue that the World Cup would be won by the team with the most religiously committed members. Pakistan’s rise and decline in cricket cannot be matched with any similar graph of religious purity. And the phenomenal improvement in China’s Olympic performance cannot be tied credibly to any parallel shifts in religious faith.

However, such contradictions are not sufficient to completely demolish the veracity of the claim linking development to faith. A more nuanced argument could be implied. Perhaps what is being argued is that deviation from the true path alters our individual attitudes and behaviors for the worse and these in turn have negative effects on our collective output. For example, the weakening of religious belief could lead to increased corruption that could impede social and economic progress.

This is a serious proposition seemingly along the lines of Max Weber who argued that the Protestant work ethic was the major contributor to the rise and geographic location of capitalist development. But Weber’s stress was on the work ethic implicit in Protestantism and not on the degree of religious belief in general. Thus, Weber could be interpreted to imply that Catholics, no matter how devout, would not have progressed as much because Catholicism lacked the work ethic of the Protestant faith.

We have already tried to show that corruption has an uneven relation to economic development. We will also argue that the work ethic is independent of religious belief. It is commonly remarked that Pakistanis work much harder and more conscientiously in the Middle East and in the US than they do at home. The change in behavior does not arise from any sudden variation in the degree of faith. Rather, it is tied to the incentives that determine the nature of the effort offered by an individual and the accountability that ensures that what is promised is actually delivered.

Thus, a social and economic system that promotes productive activities and rewards effort would elicit a good work ethic and make development possible. Perhaps we should interpret faith not in religious terms but as faith in the justness of social and economic arrangements. If people believe them to be fair, they would work hard to earn their rewards on earth. If they don’t, they would expect to be exploited and cheated of the fruits of their labor. They would then rightly fail to see the point of working hard and wait to go to heaven to find justice and equality.

It is reasonable to conclude that being the most devout competitor would not result in a gold medal in the Olympics. Being the best prepared, regardless of faith, would give one a fighting chance. The assurance that the judging would be fair would give one the motivation to try and the rewards of winning would provide the incentive. To the extent that a strong religious belief increases motivation and preparation, it can contribute to progress and achievement. But it is not essential to the equation. In theory, any arrangement with the right mix of incentives, equity, and accountability should suffice.

We need to continue the search for the real causes of our underdevelopment in South Asia.

3 Responses to “Faith and Development”

I have a strong conviction that blind faith (theocracy) and development are incompatible. It can be said that blind faith is the by product of illiteracy, corruption and religious exploitation for one’s vested interest.

After presenting a nuanced view of the relationship between religious faith and economic development the author suddenly makes rather absurd claims. For example, ” Perhaps we should interpret faith not in religious terms but as faith in the justness of social and economic arrangements. If people believe them to be fair, they would work hard to earn their rewards on earth”. This statement seems to suggest that the author does not even seem to understand what the purpose of faith is. Since we are talking about Pakistan in this article then the predominant faith is Islam. So this would mean that the author expects us to believe that the role of Islam is to actually provide material well being of muslims in their life on earth. Whereas we know that the role of Islam is absolutely opposite that. Islam teaches that one must make use of material things only to the extent that they are required for one’s survival. On the point about the justness of social and economic arrangements, while it is certainly the role of religion to establish such justness , religion however does not advocate continued concern for one’s worldly well being. It teaches that this life is almost ephemeral, nothing to get too serious about. And speaking from an a-religious perspective I think it can be empirically proven to the level of certainty, or rather has already been proven by critics of the modern capitalist global market economy and the late socialist economies, that extremely unjust and exploitative mechanisms exist at the sub-national, national, transnational and the international level in the world economy that it would be hard for anyone educated in economics to think that adhering to pure ‘justness’ and hard work would entail absolutely fair outcomes for them. To give a very simple example, there are millions or rather tens of millions of people in Pakistan that have worked harder and more honestly in their lives than Asif Ali Zardari, yet they are not reaping nearly as many benefits as the person in question.

Asad: I feel you have missed the thrust of the article. In English, the term ‘faith’ is employed in two senses – faith as belief and faith as trust. When one says that one has faith in a system or in a person that has nothing to do with faith as belief; rather it refers to the integrity, however defined, of the system or person. A question being asked in the article is whether the more integrity there is in a system, the better would be the performance of the individuals in that system?

You have also inadvertently misinterpreted the argument. The point being raised is that as far as organizational work ethic is concerned faith as trust in the system seems to be more central than faith as religious belief. Look across various institutions in your own city – they are all staffed by Muslims but some are more efficient than others. Why? This cannot be interpreted to say that the purpose of Islam is to provide material well-being on earth.

The subject of the article is development. If one is not interested in development on earth, the article is not relevant. If one is, the focus on faith as trust seems warranted.

Your comment potentially opens up a big issue that was not the subject of the article. If religion actually teaches “that this life is almost ephemeral, nothing to get too serious about” then could it be argued that almost no one is paying too much attention to the teaching?